Smith v. Lindley, 33480

• Decision Date: 24 January 1950
• Docket Number: No. 33480,33480
• Citation: 202 Okla. 501,215 P.2d 566
• Parties: SMITH et ux. v. LINDLEY et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 566

215 P.2d 566

202 Okla. 501

SMITH et ux. v. LINDLEY et al.

No. 33480.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 24, 1950.

Rehearing Denied March 7, 1950.

Syllabus by the Court

1. An action for the reformation of a deed, based upon mistake of fact, is an action of equitable cognizance. The general rule is that when, because of a mistake of fact, an instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, equity will correct such mistake unless the rights of third parties intervene.

2. A decree in an action of purely equitable cognizance will not be disturbed on appeal unless the same is clearly against the weight of the evidence.

3. Record examined and held: judgment and decree are not clearly against the weight of the evidence.

Young, Young & Young, Sapulpa, for plaintiffs in error.

Tom Wallace, Everett S. Collins, Wallace & Collins, E. C. McMichael, Sapulpa, for defendants in error.

O'NEAL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree reforming a deed.

The action was commenced by Paul E. Smith and Louise E. Smith, husband and wife, herein referred to as plaintiffs, against Florence Lindley, Mary P. Lindley, Caroline Lindley, Melvin H. Pickering, and Mrs. Melvin H. Pickering.

In their petition plaintiffs allege their ownership of Lot 11, Block 1, Main Street Addition to the City of Sapulpa under both a warranty deed and a quitclaim deed; and notwithstanding plaintiffs' ownership of said property and premises, defendants have wrongfully and illegally used and occupied the same from and after September 1, 1944, to plaintiffs' damage in the sum of $400, for which plaintiffs pray judgment.

The answer is a general denial, with the admission that the plaintiffs do have an interest in the premises described in plaintiffs' petition, which interest is limited to that set forth in defendants' cross-petition. The cross-petition alleges, in substance, that on September 1, 1944, defendant, Caroline Lindley then being the owner of said Lot 11, Block 1, executed her warranty deed conveying said property, with other property, to Paul Smith. The cross-petition then alleges, in substance, that in making said deed it was specifically understood between the grantor and the grantee that there was but one house located on said Lot 11, and that neither the grantor nor the grantee thought or understood that the improvements then on said lot consisted of more than one house, and that neither the grantor, Caroline Lindley, nor the grantee, Paul Smith, knew, or had any idea that the house now occupied by Melvin H. Pickering and Mrs. Melvin H. Pickering was located on said Lot 11, instead of Lot 10, which is directly north of said Lot 11, or that there was any house on said Lot 11 other than the one south of a fence which runs east and west on said Lot 11, and that neither party intended that the deed was to convey any improvements other than the one house located south of the fence above referred to, and that the deed, insofar as it purports to convey said Lot 11 and 'all the improvements thereon' was a mutual mistake insofar as it included the other house on said lot; that long after said deed was executed and delivered, it was discovered that the house occupied by said Pickering and wife was actually located on said Lot 11, instead of on Lot 10. Still another house was located partly on Lot 11 and Lot 10, which house had been removed; that the consideration paid for said Lot 11 was inadequate and insufficient, or, as stated by defendants, 'inconsiderate and insufficient' for the lot, together with all the buildings that were actually located thereon at that time.

The prayer was for a decree reforming said deed so as to conform to the real intention and purpose of the parties, and for a decree that the property actually conveyed was Lot 11 in Block 1 in Main Street Addition to the City of Sapulpa, and the one house located on said lot and south of said fence, and that all other improvements on said lot north of said fence, including the house in which Mr. and Mrs Melvin H. Pickering are living, are the property of defendant, Caroline Lindley, and that she be given a reasonable time to remove said improvements from said Lot 11, and for such other and further relief in equity as the court may find defendants entitled.

Plaintiffs filed a reply to the answer and cross-petition consisting of a general denial and a specific denial of any oral agreement or understanding with defendants, or any of them, save and except as reflected by the deeds executed, and allege that said deeds correctly reflect the only agreement and understanding between the plaintiffs and defendants at any time, and further specifically allege that if any collateral agreement or understanding was had, which plaintiffs deny, such agreement or agreements are invalid and not binding on plaintiffs because they were not reduced to writing.

The issues thus joined were tried to the court, resulting in findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that Caroline Lindley executed her warranty deed conveying said Lot 11 to plaintiff, Paul Smith; and that when said deed was executed it was definitely the opinion and intention of both the grantor and the grantee that there was only one residence located on said lot, when, as a matter of fact, there were three residences thereon; that said deed conveying said lot, together with all improvements thereon, and thereunto belonging, entirely failed to...